jabster, on 29 September 2017 - 11:15 AM, said:

Personally I'd just have mentioned what has any of this got to do with sample size not mattering.

HugSeal, on 29 September 2017 - 01:30 AM, said:

As for it being 100% accurate. Nope, dead wrong and probably jsut a deviation due to rng and small sample size.

This is why ^

Also,

Spurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

You did, I did, he ignored us both on it.

Please show me in which comment you asked what does this have anything to do with sample size

Allow me to quote them all so you can pick your favourite

Spurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 06:06 AM, said:

Spurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 10:29 AM, said:

Yes, the probability of getting 1 when throwing a fair dice is indeed 1/6.

That probability decreases significantly if you try to claim you can get the same result in 10 consecutive throws, so you can imagine what happens after 1000 times.

You know, like your "you could hit every shot you fired dead in the center 1000 times in a row" ridiculous claim, it's extremely unlikely, and when you consider how RNG really works, completely impossible.

Spurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 10:51 AM, said:

Of course it does, you're not dealing with a true RNG, the first clue to that is that's it's capped to a 50% variation.

Oh I need to understand that? Wow, it never occurred to me those were 2 different fields and one relies on the other.

Throwing it 1000 times won't affect the probability for each time, of course it won't. But you're claiming consistent results in a row, and that's a completely different scenario. Yes, statistically speaking, that is a valid outcome, as is any other that can be defined with the variables at hand, but the probability of that happening when using the kind of RNG that's being used? Exactly 0.

Go ahead, tell me in which one you wondered what does small sample size have anything to do with this thread. Be my guest

Spurtung, on 29 September 2017 - 11:18 AM, said:

I didn't say that. I said the probability of WG's RNG to give the same result 1000 times in a row is 0.

Unless you have a WG certified proof, repeating it won't make it true